## Ketubot Daf 101a

###### Ketubot 101a:1
[Ketubot 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:1)

יוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who leaves** the marriage union **through a bill of divorce is required to wait three months** before remarrying.


###### Ketubot 101a:2
[Ketubot 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:2)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא כּוּלְּהוּ: הַמְמָאֶנֶת בְּאִישׁ — הוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וְלֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וּפְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** Shmuel **teaching us** by telling us all of this? **We** already **learned it all** in *Yevamot* (108a): In the case of **one who refuses** to continue living **with** a certain **man, he is permitted to her relatives and she is permitted to his relatives, and she is not disqualified from** marrying into **the priesthood.** If **he gave her a bill of divorce,** then **he is forbidden to her relatives and she is forbidden to his relatives, and she is disqualified from** marrying into **the priesthood.**


###### Ketubot 101a:3
[Ketubot 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:3)

צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, דְּלָא תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary for him** to mention that if she receives a bill of divorce, **she is required to wait three months** before remarrying, **as we did not learn** that *halakha* in the mishna. Once Shmuel mentioned the difference between one who refuses to continue living with her husband and one who is divorced, he mentioned the other differences between the two cases.


###### Ketubot 101a:4
[Ketubot 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:4)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, וְאֵין בַּעְלָהּ זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ, וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: אֵינָהּ כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר, אֶלָּא שֶׁצְּרִיכָה מֵיאוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is **parallel to** a dispute between *tanna’im*, as the *baraita* teaches: **Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of** marriage by **a minor girl is nothing,** i.e., has no legal impact, when she is married off not by her father, **and her husband is not entitled to** any lost **article that she finds, and not to her earnings; and** he is **not** able **to annul her vows; and he does not inherit** from **her; nor does he become impure for her** if he is a priest. The **principle is** that her legal status is **not that of his wife in every sense, only that she requires a refusal** in order to leave the marriage.


###### Ketubot 101a:5
[Ketubot 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:5)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, וּבַעְלָהּ זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, וְיוֹרְשָׁהּ, וּמִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר, אֶלָּא שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בְּמֵיאוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says: The act of** marriage by **a minor girl is something,** i.e., has legal impact, **and her husband is entitled to** any lost **article that she finds and to her earnings; and** he is able **to annul her vows; and he inherits** from **her; and he becomes impure** for **her,** even if he is a priest. The **principle is that** her legal status is **that of his wife in every sense, except** for the fact **that she leaves** this union **through refusal** and does not need a bill of divorce.


###### Ketubot 101a:6
[Ketubot 101a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:6)

לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shall we say that Rav said** that she does not receive payment of her marriage contract **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who holds that her marriage did not take effect, **and that Shmuel said** that she does receive payment of her marriage contract **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** who holds that her marriage did take effect?


###### Ketubot 101a:7
[Ketubot 101a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:7)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees** that a minor girl’s marriage has no legal standing and, as Rav said, she is not entitled to payment of her marriage contract.


###### Ketubot 101a:8
[Ketubot 101a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:8)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְרַב: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם אֶלָּא מִדִּידַהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, אֲבָל מִדִּידֵיהּ לְדִידַהּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree,** they disagree **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. Shmuel** is **in accordance with** the literal opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. And Rav** says that when **Rabbi Yehoshua said there** that a minor girl has a legal status of his wife in every sense, it was **only** with regard **to her** obligations **toward him. But** with regard **to his** obligations **toward her,** since according to Torah law they are not married, the Sages could **not** obligate the husband to pay her anything.


###### Ketubot 101a:9
[Ketubot 101a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:9)

וְלֹא בְּלָאוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, אֲבָל נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, אִית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a girl who refuses to continue living with her husband, a woman who is forbidden by rabbinic law as a secondary relative, and an *ailonit* are not entitled to payment of a marriage contract **and** are **not** entitled to their **worn clothes. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to Rav Kahana: You told us in the name of Shmuel: They taught** that she is not entitled to her worn clothes **only** with regard to the worn-out items of **usufruct property [*nikhsei melog*], but she does have** rights to the worn-out items of her **guaranteed property [*tzon barzel*].**


###### Ketubot 101a:10
[Ketubot 101a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:10)

הָוֵי בַּהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַמְּמָאֶנֶת, אִי דְּאִיתַנְהוּ — אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שָׁקְלָא. וְאִי דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ — אִידֵּי וְאִידִי לָא שָׁקְלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa discussed it** and wondered: **To which** part of the mishna is this referring? **If we say** that it is referring **to one who refuses** to continue living with her husband, then **if** the worn-out articles **are still** in existence, **she takes both** the usufruct and the guaranteed properties. Since the marriage is annulled, she takes whatever belongs to her. **And if they are no longer** in existence and were completely worn out over the course of time, **then she does not take** compensation for **either** of them, as the husband was within his rights to make use of them.


###### Ketubot 101a:11
[Ketubot 101a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:11)

אֶלָּא אַאַיְילוֹנִית: אִי דְּאִיתַנְהוּ — אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שָׁקְלָא, אִי דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ — אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג דְּבִרְשׁוּתַהּ קָיְימִי — אִית לַהּ, נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל דְּלָאו בִּרְשׁוּתַהּ קָיְימִי — לֵית לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that Shmuel’s statement is in reference **to an *ailonit*.** This too is difficult as, in that case, **if** the articles **are still** in existence **she takes both** the usufruct and the guaranteed properties. **If they are no longer** in existence, then Shmuel **should have** stated the **opposite** and said: With regard to the **usufruct property, which remains in her possession** during the marriage, **she does** receive compensation for it in the event that the marriage is annulled. However, **she does not** receive compensation for **the guaranteed property, which does not remain in her possession** during the marriage but in the possession of her husband.


###### Ketubot 101a:12
[Ketubot 101a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:12)

אֶלָּא אַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּקְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן לְדִידַהּ בְּדִידֵיהּ וּלְדִידֵיהּ בְּדִידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that Shmuel’s statement is in reference **to a secondary** forbidden **relative, and** the rationale for this *halakha* is that the **Sages penalized** both the husband and the wife for violating a rabbinic prohibition. The Sages assigned a penalty **to her with regard to his** obligations to her, and she is not reimbursed for the worn-out usufruct property. **And** they assigned a penalty **to him with regard to her** obligations to him so that he is responsible for reimbursing her for the worn-out guaranteed property.


###### Ketubot 101a:13
[Ketubot 101a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:13)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: עַיִּילָא לֵיהּ גְּלִימָא — קַרְנָא הָוֵי, וְלָא מִכַּסֵּי לַהּ וְאָזֵיל עַד דְּבָלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Conclude from** the statement **of Rav Kahana** that **if** a wife **brought** home **to** her husband **a cloak** after they were already married, **it is** viewed as **capital, and he may not go and cover himself with it until it wears out.** With regard to land that the wife obtains during the marriage, the husband has the right to benefit from it by consuming its produce. From the fact that Rav Kahana stated that it is only in this particular case that the woman is not reimbursed for clothing that became worn out through her husband’s use, one can infer that generally, the husband does not have the right to use a garment she obtains, to the degree that it becomes worn out.


###### Ketubot 101a:14
[Ketubot 101a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:14)

וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן פֵּירָא הָוֵי! דְּרַב נַחְמָן פְּלִיגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav Naḥman say** that use of the cloak **is** considered **the produce** of her property, to which the husband is entitled? The Gemara answers: The statement **of Rav Naḥman** is in **disagreement** with that opinion.


###### Ketubot 101a:15
[Ketubot 101a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:15)

אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָנֶה מָאתַיִם, אֲבָל תּוֹסֶפֶת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that these specific women **are not entitled to** payment of **a marriage contract. Shmuel said: They taught this only** with regard to the principal of the marriage contract, which the Sages instituted for all women, amounting to **one hundred dinars** for a widow and **two hundred** dinars for a virgin. **However,** the **additional** sum listed in the marriage contract, which their husband specified for them of his own accord, is considered a gift and **they are entitled to** it.


###### Ketubot 101a:16
[Ketubot 101a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:16)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה, כְּגוֹן הַמְמָאֶנֶת וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ — אֵין לָהֶן מָנֶה מָאתַיִם, אֲבָל תּוֹסֶפֶת — יֵשׁ לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **That is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Women** with regard to **whom the Sages said: They are not entitled to** payment of **a marriage contract, for example, one who refused** to remain married to her husband, **and her companions, they are not entitled** to the principal of **one hundred dinars** or **two hundred** dinars. **But** as for the **additional** sum stipulated in the marriage contract that the husband added of his own accord, **they are entitled to** it.


###### Ketubot 101a:17
[Ketubot 101a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:17)

נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה, כְּגוֹן עוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ — אֵין לָהֶן תּוֹסֶפֶת, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מָנֶה מָאתַיִם. וְהַיּוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע — נוֹטֶלֶת מַה שֶּׁלְּפָנֶיהָ וְיוֹצְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **women** with regard to **whom the Sages said: They are divorced without** receiving payment for their **marriage contract, for example, a woman who violates** the **precepts** of *halakha* or Jewish custom, **and her companions, are not entitled to the additional** sum stipulated by their husbands in the marriage contract. **And** since they violated and transgressed the mitzvot, it is **all the more so** that they are not entitled to receive the principal **one hundred dinars** or **two hundred** dinars, as the Sages penalized them and negated all of their husband’s obligations that are recorded in the marriage contract. **And one who is divorced because** she received **a bad reputation** for licentiousness **takes what is left** of her usufruct property **and is divorced.**


###### Ketubot 101a:18
[Ketubot 101a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/101a:18)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זִינְּתָה לֹא הִפְסִידָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: This *baraita* **supports** the opinion **of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said:** A woman who **was licentious has not lost**